Ron Paul for President

[Toadman]

It only makes sense that troops would be focused on the war as a campaign issue. I guess what we are seeing, among Republicans, is intense polarization – pro- and anti-war, with McCain and Paul as beneficiaries.

[Sarah L]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toadman

It only makes sense that troops would be focused on the war as a campaign issue. I guess what we are seeing, among Republicans, is intense polarization – pro- and anti-war, with McCain and Paul as beneficiaries.

Keep in mind that Army moral is very high and re-enlistment rates astonishing despite the war. Volunteers for Iraq duty are astounding. Interesting considering how stretched our Army is supposed to be and how badly we are supposed to be losing this war.

[Toadman]

Morale is agreeably very high and re-enlistments are up but has little to do with foreign policy. I wouldnt want to come back state-side to $4/gal gas, inflated prices and a recession either. It's a strong point they make to encourage re-upping along with a $10-15k bonus

If the Army isn't stretched then why are deployments extended from 12 to 15 months when the Marines still get no more than 8? Why stop-loss?
And why are we so far off the thread topic now, lol!

[Sarah L]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toadman

Morale is agreeably very high and re-enlistments are up but has little to do with foreign policy. I wouldnt want to come back state-side to $4/gal gas, inflated prices and a recession either. It's a strong point they make to encourage re-upping along with a $10-15k bonus

If the Army isn't stretched then why are deployments extended from 12 to 15 months when the Marines still get no more than 8? Why stop-loss?

Vietnam the tours were 13 months. AND the Army has had re-enlistment bonuses since I have been in. That Dog does not hunt, because with re-enlistment bonuses before 911 we ran at a lower retention rate. Infantry bonuses were about the same as they are now but it has varied over the years.

[Toadman]

You still didnt answer the question. What the tours were in 'Nam are irrelevant today. This is not a McNamara war of gradual escalation. The Surge is supposedly complete. So why are tours being extended from 12 to 15 months and 1-year off (to the day or week)before re-deploying?

[Sarah L]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toadman

You still didnt answer the question. What the tours were in 'Nam are irrelevant today. This is not a McNamara war of gradual escalation. The Surge is supposedly complete. So why are tours being extended from 12 to 15 months and 1-year off (to the day or week)before re-deploying?

The same reason the Army wanted to raise the tours to 15 months in Vietnam. So its is not irrelevant what an organization like the Army determines a hardship tour should be. Perhaps the Army's experience has something to do with that. Guess you thought the Army Command sat down one day and said "What the hell, why not make a tour 15 months"?

There is a well measured reason behind these determinations. Taught by the cruelest of endeavors.

Experience and competence of the individual soldier in a hazardous zone dictate the tour length. Too short and you remove a soldier about to become well versed in his job and bring the newer man along. Too long and you burn him out.

This directly from my CO, "Many officers believed the 13 month tours of Vietnam were too short. We were sending men back just when they were really getting good. That deprived us of well seasoned soldiers to bring the follow on soldiers along. "

[EXreaction]

If it takes 13 months for soldiers to "get good" you've got some shitty soldiers. That is flat out BS, it shouldn't take more than a month or two to get re-situated back after leaving/returning.

I say it is crappy management, not enough soldiers, and not enough money which is causing them problems. My suggestion would be to just get the hell out of there before they do any more damage to this country and the stability of the world.

[Sarah L]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EXreaction

If it takes 13 months for soldiers to "get good" you've got some shitty soldiers. That is flat out BS, it shouldn't take more than a month or two to get re-situated back after leaving/returning.

I say it is crappy management, not enough soldiers, and not enough money which is causing them problems. My suggestion would be to just get the hell out of there before they do any more damage to this country and the stability of the world.

Gee I guess your combat experience is greater than my CO's who only did 2 tours back to back in Vietnam. Tell me have you ever been in a gun fight? Never mind your to damn smart for me to argue with.

[The Real Bingo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by EXreaction

I say it is crappy management, not enough soldiers, and not enough money which is causing them problems. My suggestion would be to just get the hell out of there before they do any more damage to this country and the stability of the world.

I'd say there are too many soldiers. Small, mobile teams of elite soldiers are more successful against an enemy like this. Of course, intelligence needs to be top-notch, too.


BTW, I threw my vote away during the PA primary for RP and plan on doing it in the general. No Republican wins PA anyway, so I may as well vote for an actual conservative.

[EXreaction]

Gee, I guess you just don't realize BS from your CO when you hear it. I don't have to shoot somebody to know that it does not take 13 months to "start getting good". You get good from your training before hand, then you get used to the environment.